Fender acoustic owners.

[Pitar]

Having had the opportunity to spend an hour in a Sam Ash store last Sunday, I played a Fender Newporter and it surprised me. Ugly, but with pretty good tone, I ran up and down the neck comfortably without wincing once. For the electric player thinking he should have a decent acoustic, I would recommend this guitar to him.

[Birdbrain]

Originally Posted by learner

I'll start by saying I don't like the company Fender at all. And that is not tempered by their well-deserved reputation in electrics, since I'm not an electric player. That said, I have played some very good MIC Fender acoustics recently which remind me of the Guild GAD series from the early 2000s. (Which were excellent guitars for the price.) So, I'm wondering if perhaps Fender learned something about building acoustics during the years they owned Guild.

They could have learned a completely distinctive and innovative approach to acoustic guitars simply by keeping Tacoma Guitars alive. They devised paisley-shaped offset soundholes atop the upper bout that acted like a soundport for the player, while freeing up the top for an early form of V-bracing. From the mighty acoustic Thunderhawk basses to the 3/4 sized Papoose, Tacoma guitars led the way, they didn't follow. So Fender bought the factory and, in a few years, shut down Tacoma and moved Guild production into the single rented factory building.

Almost all the designs, blueprints, molds and tools were discarded, they say. But Fender could take one apart and learn how again, if they cared to. But Fender wouldn't get my business even if they made authentic Tacoma reproductions. I already have my original, a model that will never be replicated. It would be a gift to guitar buyers to bring some models back, though. Twenty years ago, Tacomas were catching on fast among country and rock stars.

[guitararmy]

I gave Fender a chance and bought one of their rosewood Paramount acoustic/electric dreadnoughts. Very well made with classy appointments, nice pickup, nice hardshell case. Unfortunately, it just didn't do much acoustically.

I was perplexed at how unexceptional sounding it was. It seems that if you simply copied what everyone else was doing it would sound better than it did.
It made a nice gift to a beginning guitarist...

[Wade Hampton]

Birdbrain wrote:

Originally Posted by Birdbrain

(Fender) could have learned a completely distinctive and innovative approach to acoustic guitars simply by keeping Tacoma Guitars alive. They devised paisley-shaped offset soundholes atop the upper bout that acted like a soundport for the player, while freeing up the top for an early form of V-bracing. From the mighty acoustic Thunderhawk basses to the 3/4 sized Papoose, Tacoma guitars led the way, they didn't follow. So Fender bought the factory and, in a few years, shut down Tacoma and moved Guild production into the single rented factory building.

Almost all the designs, blueprints, molds and tools were discarded, they say. But Fender could take one apart and learn how again, if they cared to. But Fender wouldn't get my business even if they made authentic Tacoma reproductions. I already have my original, a model that will never be replicated. It would be a gift to guitar buyers to bring some models back, though. Twenty years ago, Tacomas were catching on fast among country and rock stars.

BB, one of my best friends was in management at the Tacoma Guitar Company, working as an R&D luthier for them designing and building model prototypes and overseeing the assembly line. He and John Walker designed all of the guitars in their initial lineup, including the Tacoma Papoose that George Gruhn likes to take credit for designing.

It's true that Tacoma did develop some innovative models and did some creative things while the company was in operation. But here's the thing: the Tacoma Guitar Company was never profitable, and it lost money in every fiscal quarter that it was in operation except one.

One fiscal quarter in the nine or ten years of operation that Tacoma made guitars prior to being bought by Fender was SLIGHTLY profitable. That's it. The company never made any money. Instead, they lost lots of it.

The only reason that the company didn't get shut down years before Fender bought it was that it was wholly owned by and seen as a high prestige project by the Young Chang piano company of South Korea. Mr. Young Chang's son-in-law was officially in charge of the Tacoma Guitar Company, and shutting it down would have been seen as a major loss of face for him, and by the extension of filial and family obligation in the Korean culture, a loss of face for Mr. Young Chang himself.

As for the idea that "Tacomas were catching on fast among country and rock stars," do you know why you saw as many of them as you did in the hands of prominent players? It's because Terry Atkins, the head marketing guy, gave away lots and lots of guitars to players in famous and semi-famous bands. My friend Duane told me that when rock and country bands visited the Tacoma factory, every member of the bands would get free guitars, even the drummers who didn't play guitar.

Even non-famous performers like me benefited from this sometimes. I didn't get any free guitars, but I was sold several guitars at prices well below the wholesale prices that Tacoma dealers had to pay. I did offer feedback and commentary about the things I liked and disliked about those instruments, and to Terry that was enough to justify selling me guitars at such reduced prices, bless his heart.

I realize that diehard Tacoma guitar fans have embraced this narrative of a treacherous Fender Music Corporation stabbing Tacoma in the back, but it's a myth. By normal business standards, Tacoma would have died long before. Fender bought the brand - not because they wanted the Tacoma brand itself, but because they wanted the factory and its machinery to build Guilds. The only Tacomas they built were those that filled remaining dealer orders. (Incidentally, so far as I'm aware Fender had to buy the land and factory building, not rent it. By that point the entire operation was hemorrhaging money on a monthly basis, and the Young Chang company wanted to divest themselves of it entirely.)

As difficult as this might be for you to accept, owning the Tacoma brand name was not any kind of enticement for Fender or any other guitar company looking to expand its offerings. It was actually thrown in as part of the deal as kind of a cherry on top.

Please don't take this as any kind of attack on Tacoma - I still own two Tacoma guitars and love them. But the company and the guitars it made never made any significant impact on the North American acoustic guitar market. That's a simple fact.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[ship of fools]

When they had their very short run with Washburn they seem to be doing okay but like all things with Washburn at the time it just never worked out. Kind of like what happened when Dana B was making some for them. They where some sweet guitars.
And now back to point in my life time I have come across only 2 Fender guitars that I enjoyed playing and that sounded very decent ( but just to be fair here they both had been set up and the necks were shaved some ).
But alas I have never found any in yester years or even today that I would add to my collection. For some reason they just lack the humph that is needed to make them stand out.
I am just unsure if they really want to be in that market cause there are a lot of great designers out there and they could seriously improve what they make.

[sleeperservice]

A friend gave me a 1978/9 fender F65 that pretty much sat in its case for at least the last 10 years.i recently took the thing out and decided to bring it back to some kind of life.out came the adjustable bridge, nut and the fairly cruddy machine heads and after robbing a bit of rosewood to fill the gap left by the adjustable bridge and recut for a tusq saddle,ditto the nut,and some new machines its become a very presentable guitar.it has a kind of martin look what with the abalone around the edge and although far from a martin or gibson tone it sounds pretty good.

[Bill Yellow]

My wife took a fancy to a Fender Paramount 00 12-fret, all mahogany (or possibly NATO, I don't know). It was a kinda bare wood open pore finish and had a nice tone. Very light weight, too.
The open back tuners looked cheap, but the problem with the one in the store was that as far as I could see, the neck was bent like a banana.
The shop guy thought I didn't know what I was talking about, but took out a wrench anyhow.
Moments later he said he was sorry, couldn't sell us that guitar, it was faulty. And he had no others in stock. Seems the truss rod was not properly installed or was broken.
So my advice re modern far eastern Fender acoustics is: Nice instruments, shame about the quality control.

[Danley]

Originally Posted by personatech

Those do look cool. I'd love to try one of the reissues, just for giggles.

They’re on the ‘V3 ‘ Villager now; I assume the above is considered a ‘V2 ,’ and the original is the ‘V1 ‘ ? I haven’t bothered to compare the precise specs - but I played the new one at a shop, and wound up ordering one used online; so hope I don’t have any bad surprises on what I get, but the one in-store played/sounded quite nice

Keep in mind - I’m primarily an electric player, and although I probably have different standards when it comes to acoustics than people here (and certainly won’t pay over a certain threshold anyway for instruments that aren’t my ‘main’ ones,) I didn’t have great experiences with Fender acoustics until recently, with the release of the California series guitars. A couple years ago I nearly bought a Sonoran as a result, but wound up with my Breedlove Discovery (as the best sounding acoustic in the room.)

I have two other twelve strings (an old Yamaha and a cheap Mitchell) but the Villager has a shorter scale and smaller body that are more ergonomic to me; the Breedlove I mentioned has a somewhat over-sized body that sort of kills my arm after a while. Plus- I think all the CA series guitars look great - just wish the Villager was available in more than just black (Seafoam or shell pink would be nice.)

[joseriverasound]

I guess somebody buys them because they have like 100 different models.

[Italuke]

Accidentally stumbled across this. What's ol' Buck playin' here, anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyJS...4ZB5L3JlOGF3CY

[Danley]

I wager a King/Kingman; maybe a Concert, which would only have a slightly smaller body. Does anyone know if the old bolt-on Fenders are full laminate, or are the tops at least solid?

[gfspencer]

Originally Posted by FoxHound4690

Hey AGF,
Question regarding Fender acoustics.

Are they any good?

No. They make some of the best electrics but acoustic is not their forte.

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by Danley

I wager a King/Kingman; maybe a Concert, which would only have a slightly smaller body. Does anyone know if the old bolt-on Fenders are full laminate, or are the tops at least solid?

I’ve never owned one, and am not remotely an expert when it comes to Fender’s 60’s-vintage Made In USA acoustic guitars, but I’ve never seen one with a solid wood top. I have picked up and played probably half a dozen or more of them over the years, but not one of them sounded good to me at all.

Hopefully someone with genuine expertise on Fender acoustic guitars from that era will show up and give us the answer, but if Fender did make any solid wood top acoustic guitars back then, either:

1.) I never played one;

or

2.) The design and execution of the Fender acoustic guitars from the 60’s that I’ve played was so bad that having solid spruce tops couldn’t save them.

But I honestly think that they were built with all-laminated woods.

The Asian-made cheapo copies that Fender is currently marketing all sound far better than the originals ever did. That’s the truth of the matter.


whm

[Danley]

Between the ‘broom,’ the pickguard nailed to the top, laminate construction etc. I have no doubt these don’t give the typical acoustic sound people look for; but they’re sure as hell intriguing. I really am interested in experiencing one first-hand, since I never have. I’m especially curious about the bridge on the Kingman/Concerts:

[Wade Hampton]

Danley wrote:

Originally Posted by Danley

Between the ‘broom,’ the pickguard nailed to the top, laminate construction etc. I have no doubt these don’t give the typical acoustic sound people look for; but they’re sure as hell intriguing. I really am interested in experiencing one first-hand, since I never have. I’m especially curious about the bridge on the Kingman/Concerts:

Danley, there was a brief fashion for electric guitar-style adjustable bridge saddles during the late 50’s through the mid-60’s. I suppose they must make the intonation more precise, but they put so much mass in the worst possible place for it on the guitar that they inevitably kill a LOT of tone. There’s just too much metal and too much weight there for the guitar to sound its best, because the top’s vibrations get inhibited by all that.

So by all means enjoy the thought of electric guitar-style individually adjustable saddles, but understand that acoustic guitars work in an fundamentally different mechanical way than solidbody electric guitars do, and that by its sheer mass alone this bridge design kills a lot of tone on an acoustic guitar.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller